 |
|
Topic started on 20-2-2008 @ 02:08 PM by DalairTheGreat
|
According to this guy, saying you want to kill the president is one of the only illegal things you can say.
I thought this was protected by free speech. Even though its not unlikely for you to be investigated upon, but technically is saying that legal?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:12 PM by Dr Love
|
I'm not sure of the legalities, but I guarantee you'll have a heapin' helpin' of federal agents on your tail.
Peace 
[edit on 20-2-2008 by Dr Love]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:13 PM by Jeff Riff
|
yeah man I think that they would be all over your arse of you went around saying something like that. Who knows, they might even go after you just
for this thread!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:15 PM by 12.21.12
|
To say that you "want" is different than saying "you are going to" if it is deemed as a threat, then yes it is illegal to say, in the US anyways.
This law has been around for some time even before the Patriot Act. Although now there is hardly anything you can say under the Patriot Act you may be
labeled as a Terrorist and may be imprisoned with out a trial.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:16 PM by thisguyrighthere
|
I don't think stating a desire to kill the pres is illegal but stating intent "I will..." or "I am going to..." is.
I'm surprised no Presidential assassin has cited speech or the redress of grievances to paint murder of a government official as a protected
Constitutional right.
I wonder, is there a lawyer good enough to make that work?
If so I predict an awful lot of empty Congressional seats.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:17 PM by Britguy
|
From what I have seen in the past, such statements usually get one a visit from the secret service 
I wonder what they'd do if he went Quail shooting with uncle Dick and collected a face full of buckshot 
Seriously though, threats against the Prez tend to be frowned upon and free speech doesn't come into it at all. Much as a lot of people would like
to see him dangling at the end of a rope (maybe he and Tony Bliar could share a platform), talking about it in a public forum will likely get you into
trouble.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:46 PM by HruthTurts
|
That's nothing compared to what is supposed to come... it will be so terrible if you so much as hurt someones feelings you could be executed.
Obviously I'm only giving you a very small statement, but Dr. Deagle seems to know his stuff and so far everything I've looked into his data and
specific scientific information has checked out. He can explain things much better than me.
video.google.com...
This should get you to the first video and the rest are listed next to it... I agree with the person who posted that this is a must watch. It is and I
highly recommend being prepared for the video. It's fast paced and extremely detailed. You do need to pay very close attention maybe even pausing
at some points. I honestly believe he could be one of Gods 2 final witnesses. You can read my post on that and tell me what you think...
Anyway, you have beans posting that especially here on ATS... probably scanned for stuff like this... And all of us who posted in reply are probably
on the list now too... 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 10:11 PM by Wally Conley
|
Yes, the FEDS would be up your backside for this one. I know personally of one guy from Schoharie County who said he was going to kill the President,
and they investigated him up the yin yang for it. The reason he had been turned in was because he had repeated this several times to both a social
worker and a psychiatrist he was seeing at the time. He didn't serve any time in jail for it. They did make him stay in a mental institution for six
months, though. Even before 9/11, the FEDS would have considered this "making a terroristic threat" and would have investigated it thoroughly to
make sure the person in question wasn't another Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan "patsy" type. And I can see the need for investigating someone
like this. Even if he didn't have emotional problems. You just can't take a chance that the individual in question wouldn'tdo what he said he was
going to do. You know the old addage: "Better safe than sorry."
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 10:14 PM by racerzeke
|
Sure is I dont want to say illegal but definitely something you say if you want a visit from the secret service....
 The 14-year-old freshman was taken out of class Wednesday and questioned for about 15 minutes by two Secret Service agents. The incident has upset
her parents, who said the agents should have included them when they questioned their daughter.
Be careful buddy 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 10:27 PM by bigfoot1212
|
free speech has limits to it. i believe it was meant to be the right to voice your opinion( such as we do on here) but not make threats against other
people. that is called terroristic threats and reason to be investigated. now saying "i would like to see" or "i am going to" "if i get the
chance i would" etc have different meanings. i guess it would depend on how many previous statements were made and if they can determine if they
were of malicious intent.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 10:31 PM by steve22
|
 Originally posted by HruthTurts
That's nothing compared to what is supposed to come... it will be so terrible if you so much as hurt someones feelings you could be executed.
Obviously I'm only giving you a very small statement, but Dr. Deagle seems to know his stuff and so far everything I've looked into his data and
specific scientific information has checked out. He can explain things much better than me.
video.google.com...
This should get you to the first video and the rest are listed next to it... I agree with the person who posted that this is a must watch. It is and I
highly recommend being prepared for the video. It's fast paced and extremely detailed. You do need to pay very close attention maybe even pausing
at some points. I honestly believe he could be one of Gods 2 final witnesses. You can read my post on that and tell me what you think...
Anyway, you have beans posting that especially here on ATS... probably scanned for stuff like this... And all of us who posted in reply are probably
on the list now too... 
what does that have to do with talking about killing the pres? 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 04:37 PM by hotpinkurinalmint
|
Whether or not the prhase is illegal is context specific. The way you used the phrase now is protected by the 1st ammendment as nobody could
reasonably believe you are inciting people. If you were standing in front of an angry mob assembled outside the White House, the phrase could be
illegal.
I know of somebody who was not criminally prosecuted, but nevertheless was detained and investigated by the secret service for making threatening
remarks. When I went to college at Cal, Chelsea Clinton was attending our arch rival Stanford. A few days before a Cal- Stanford football game, a
columnist in our school newspaper wrote a blustering article about how the Cal football team was going to beat the Stanford football team. In the
article he said that the team was going to trample all over Chelsea Clinton or something to that effect. To make a long story short, the secret
service paid him a visit, monitored him, and detained him in his home for a few hours.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 04:52 PM by kennethmd
|
If you threating someone life and he or she died. You could be held liable for person death. Even though you have nothing.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 05:07 PM by greeneyedleo
|
Well, here is some information:
usgovinfo.about.com...://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/871.shtml
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 871Prev | Next § 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
How Current is This? (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter
carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of
President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful
candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine
the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in
accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.
Also, just some more random information:
usgovinfo.about.com...
Every year, the Secret Service investigates over 1,500 reported or discovered threats against the President. While most people who threaten the
President are just venting, even joking, all reported threats are taken very seriously and those who make them are in for, at least, a tough time.
[edit on 21-2-2008 by greeneyedleo]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 06:18 PM by 12.21.12
|
I find it interesting that the OP has not responded to any of this.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 06:22 PM by dracodie
|
so me , not being a american , and say that i will blow the white house , im going to get a trip with all paid to guantanamo?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 11:35 PM by racerzeke
|
I would say being not American and you threaten the pres/white house would get you looked at more.... Just my opinion. Again guys you have to be
careful what you type here, because I doubt they go into contexts of what is being. They probably have a huge filter that just grabs a few words no
matter where (conspiracy website asking what ifs) or if its in a joking matter.... Wouldnt be surprised to see a few people here be checked out
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 05:59 PM by hotpinkurinalmint
|
Originally posted by kennethmd
If you threating someone life and he or she died. You could be held liable for person death. Even though you have nothing.
You would not be liable for the person's death. Making a threat can create liability in and of itself, but you would not be liable for that
person's death unless your threat causes the death.
Let us say I post a death threat on this message board directed at the President. If somebody who has not read my threat or does not know of it
happens to kill the president after I post the threat, I could not be liable for that person's actions. If my threat somehow caused that person to
kill the president, there might be some liability.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 06:34 PM by hinky
|
It's illegal on 2 counts. You put it in writing and you said it out loud. This is not a protected form of free speech as the Constitution
proscribes.
How much of a threat this can be has to be determined by the government, regardless, just doing something stupid like this where it can actually be
traced to a person could run several thousand dollars in legal costs to defend yourself.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 9-3-2008 @ 12:56 AM by Sublime620
|
Yeah, the actual phrase itself is not illegal. It is not consitutional to ban any exact words or phrasing. For instance:
Hate speech can be banned, but not by words. Only intent. Neither the state or Federal Government can ban any words.
So saying that phrase is not illegal, unless it's done with some sort of hate or in a threatening manner.
Then it constitutes a threat -- which is illegal.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
